RC stats for TATW 3 RELEASED

[Darth Lord Revan]

I modified the EDU to bring the RC stats to the new 3.1 and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in having it and/or helping me with the balance and all. Specially for new units (that were not in previous RC mods, so I could not coppied them... )

If there is interest then I would start a thread in the submods forum to upload the files (both the EDU and the descr_projectile for you to check)

Let me know what you think

[Elensul]

No time to help you, but interested in some RC in 3.x!
Good thing someone started with that!

[Darth Lord Revan]

No time to help you, but interested in some RC in 3.x!
Good thing someone started with that!

Well the truth is I've already done it, but I think it still needs some balancing, specially with the new units and the recruiting and upkeep costs to adapt to this new version.
I could upload them as they are, but... well, I'll see what everyone else has to say about it first.

[Sohn des Khaine]

Please load it up, ASAP.
every change should be an improvement.

For the new units: decrease the spider-stats, they are way over the top (change from elefant to infantry or slow cacalery (perhaps with high charge-range), reduce armor). IMO they are completly strange: can't see them having insane high armor. Spiders are soft. Should have high attack, high defence, no armour, low morale.

Ostgiliath Pikeman: they are a Joke at the moment (don't know if intented or by mistake): High End AOE unit with milita stats -> useless. Should have roughtly the stats of Fountainguard, but with Pikes instead of spears. You need a reward if you ever rebuild Ostgiliath (is it even possible at given growth rates? I doubt it)

If you wanna change some things with Rc in general: get rid of "armor piercing" (except for siege weapons). Its the most game breaking attribute. This could end up that you loose more armored troops (E.g. dragonslayers) to armor piercing enemys than unarmored (eg. dwarven miners), which is really strange.
If you want to represent very deadly troops increse attack rating and attack speed instead. IMO way more elegant.

[Darth Lord Revan]

Please load it up, ASAP.
every change should be an improvement.

For the new units: decrease the spider-stats, they are way over the top (change from elefant to infantry or slow cacalery (perhaps with high charge-range), reduce armor). IMO they are completly strange: can't see them having insane high armor. Spiders are soft. Should have high attack, high defence, no armour, low morale.

Ostgiliath Pikeman: they are a Joke at the moment (don't know if intented or by mistake): High End AOE unit with milita stats -> useless. Should have roughtly the stats of Fountainguard, but with Pikes instead of spears. You need a reward if you ever rebuild Ostgiliath (is it even possible at given growth rates? I doubt it)

If you wanna change some things with Rc in general: get rid of "armor piercing" (except for siege weapons). Its the most game breaking attribute. This could end up that you loose more armored troops (E.g. dragonslayers) to armor piercing enemys than unarmored (eg. dwarven miners), which is really strange.
If you want to represent very deadly troops increse attack rating and attack speed instead. IMO way more elegant.

For spiders what I did was just lowering their mass. They don't send people flying to the sky all the time anymore. They are deadly to all unit except for very heavy infantry. I think thats pretty balanced. Giant Spiders are not soft (only perhaps their underbellys?) but hard, so it's okey I think if they have a high armour, but I'm open to hear what everybody has to say about it. Attack rating and speed are sorted out by the RC system which is balanced for that.

Pikemen with spearwall formation have a huge advantage against their enemys because they can not reach them. But I agree they could have better stats being a late unit.

I don't really get what you mean about getting rid of the armour piercing... it's historically, lore and gameplay accurate to have units that can counter high armour. But, of course, not all of them, so you have to select which units are good for each task.

Thank you for bringing your ideas Sohn des Khaine, I will sure upload the files as soon as I get enough feed back and/or help to finish the balance.

[Sohn des Khaine]

The trait armor piercing (ap) is completly broken. The mechanic as a whole as well as the units who have acess to it are both unrealistic. But its not a Third age problem, it is a general mistake in Medieval 2.

a) the mechanic: Ap ignores 50% or the targets armor bonus. This leads to strange situations that "elite unit" like Dragon slayers (armor 12, defence 2 = defence 8 if armour halved) end up on the same Level or worse than some kind of "milita", for example Lindon Longspears (4 8 = 10 if armour halved) mordor halberd ( 8 and 4 = 8 ) Uruk hai crossbows (8 and 4 =8) or wargriders ( 6 6 = 9).
Armpr piercing is a mess for the hierarchy of defence values.

If some unit should have very effective weapons it is betterl to simply improve the attack stat of that unit (for example +4). All other traits do this and it its far mor logical as it helps against all targets the same.

b) units who are armor piercing
In short: every axe in middle earth has ap. Thats a joke. Axes are NOT armor piercing. Theres a reason why in the real middle ages swords where expensive as hell while an axe was the weapon of the simple townsfolk: because a sword IS the better weapon in every respect.
There are very few weapons that could be considered armour piercing: arbalests/crossbows and perhaps bodkin arrows and some special armor breakers (which usually where considered as dishonorably weapons and forbidden) but theres no way that every simple axe is armor piercing.

[Wismer]

The trait armor piercing (ap) is completly broken. The mechanic as a whole as well as the units who have acess to it are both unrealistic. But its not a Third age problem, it is a general mistake in Medieval 2.

a) the mechanic: Ap ignores 50% or the targets armor bonus. This leads to strange situations that "elite unit" like Dragon slayers (armor 12, defence 2 = defence 8 if armour halved) end up on the same Level or worse than some kind of "milita", for example Lindon Longspears (4 8 = 10 if armour halved) mordor halberd ( 8 and 4 = 8 ) Uruk hai crossbows (8 and 4 =8) or wargriders ( 6 6 = 9).
Armpr piercing is a mess for the hierarchy of defence values.

If some unit should have very effective weapons it is betterl to simply improve the attack stat of that unit (for example +4). All other traits do this and it its far mor logical as it helps against all targets the same.

b) units who are armor piercing
In short: every axe in middle earth has ap. Thats a joke. Axes are NOT armor piercing. Theres a reason why in the real middle ages swords where expensive as hell while an axe was the weapon of the simple townsfolk: because a sword IS the better weapon in every respect.
There are very few weapons that could be considered armour piercing: arbalests/crossbows and perhaps bodkin arrows and some special armor breakers (which usually where considered as dishonorably weapons and forbidden) but theres no way that every simple axe is armor piercing.

Are they, though? Not the best source but it did not take me long to find a counter-point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_axe:

In the eastern Mediterranean Basin during the Iron Age, the double-bladed labrys axe was prevalent, and a hafted, single-bitted axe made of bronze or later iron was sometimes used as a weapon of war by the heavy infantry of ancient Greece, especially when confronted with thickly-armored opponents. The sagaris—described as either single bitted or double bitted—became associated by the Greeks with the mythological Amazons, though these were generally ceremonial axes rather than practical implements. The Roman Army equipped itself with axes. Legionaries used them as laboring tools rather than as weapons of war. However, the so-called Barbarian tribes that the Romans encountered north of the Alps did include iron war axes in their armories, alongside swords and spears.

They were good weapons because the blade area was smaller than that of a sword, thereby transferring more power against an opponent and in a sense worked like a mace - breaking bones underneath armor. So, yea, I think AP in the game is valid though perhaps the game mechanics are not so great.

[Point Blank]

a) the mechanic: Ap ignores 50% or the targets armor bonus. This leads to strange situations that "elite unit" like Dragon slayers (armor 12, defence 2 = defence 8 if armour halved) end up on the same Level or worse than some kind of "milita", for example Lindon Longspears (4 8 = 10 if armour halved) mordor halberd ( 8 and 4 = 8 ) Uruk hai crossbows (8 and 4 =8) or wargriders ( 6 6 = 9).
Armpr piercing is a mess for the hierarchy of defence values.

No militia Spear unit should have a defense as high as 8. No spear unit of any quality really. A polearm unit perhaps.

RC 2.0 for Medieval attached (complete) and RC 2.0 for TATW (mostly done) attached.

SS units file attached completed to RC 2.0 as an example.

I have been away for a looong time, Real Life has been piling it on like crazy. Maybe I'll have time to finish it all soon.

EDIT: Moneybags14 was also working on a fantastic autogen RC stats spreadsheet for RC, I haven't looked at this version yet but here it is:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UHG2TT65

I hadn't yet completed the mounts and unit types (eg Noble, Warrior) and how they differed from Medieval so not sure if these were included, but earlier versions of the sheet I saw were excellent

[Emperor of Hell]

Do you use parts of Point Blank's work?

[Darth Lord Revan]

Do you use parts of Point Blank's work?

Yes Killersmurf, I transfered his stats to the 3.1 EDU and I did what I could with the new units...


Sohn des Khaine, its an interesting discussion. But I have to disagree on something. There were weapons specially design to counter heavy armour, such as polearms, Voulges, Halberds, war Hammers, war axes, etc. They were sometimes used by militia and, with the right numbers and order, they could tip down and defeat a knight.
But, as you said, we could discuss about how many units should have ap weapons.

Check this website, the line that describes axes: http://www.mercwars.com/weapongloss.shtml
"Axes remained a favored tool for cracking through plate armor."

[Emperor of Hell]

Did you ask permission? A submod for 2.1 has already been closed for that. Just to warn you

[k/t]

b) units who are armor piercing
In short: every axe in middle earth has ap. Thats a joke. Axes are NOT armor piercing. Theres a reason why in the real middle ages swords where expensive as hell while an axe was the weapon of the simple townsfolk: because a sword IS the better weapon in every respect.
There are very few weapons that could be considered armour piercing: arbalests/crossbows and perhaps bodkin arrows and some special armor breakers (which usually where considered as dishonorably weapons and forbidden) but theres no way that every simple axe is armor piercing.

AP doesn't mean it necessarily pierces armour. It just means the weapon is effective against armour.

Swords were more expensive because they were harder to make and they required more metal. The townsfolk could not afford them. Today, you can buy a sword for 800 dollars and a pistol for 600. Which is the better weapon?

Crossbows should NOT have AP, and neither should javelins. Instead, they should have higher attack numbers. Bodkins shouldn't be AP either.

Halbers and poleaxes were never considered dishonourable. Poleaxes were used by knights and men-at-arms.

The whole AP mechanic is a rough attempt at realism. Ideally, each weapon would have bonuses and penalties against different types of armour, and armour upgrades would give an increase in armour level commensurate with the new armour, not just +2 each time. However, CA blew it and we're stuck with having to make things work as best we can.

The stats in M2 and in Vanilla TA (and in several other mods) have clearly been pulled out of somebody's ___. This is why RR/RC is so great. I still play TA 1.4, by the way, because subsequent versions don't have RR/RC.

I can help with the stats for the units. I have a copy of PB's latest guideline for RR/RC (2.0), which he was using for the Stainless Steel RR/RC update (which hasn't occurred yet). He hasn't been on the forum in a while, though.

Axes aren't better at hurting armoured opponents than swords because the area of impact is smaller. It's because there is more mass at the tip, resulting in a greater impact. The armour didn't have to be "cracked open" in order for the guy in it to be hurt. The blunt force trauma would be very bad on its own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqCM6...eature=related

Did you even try the Osgiliath Guards or are you just complaining because of their stats? How do they actually do in battle?

[mastermindkar]

Didn't Point Blank express his intention a while back to remove the AP stat completely, and replace it with a bonus to attack and associated reduction in attack speed to reflect the hitting power and less balanced/versatile nature of such weapons?

To me, it is more realistic to apply such bonuses rather than to just assign the blanket AP stat, which has the unhappy effect of scaling the damage bonus based on the defender's armor, so that peasants with crappy iron hand axes somehow get the equivalent of +6 or +8 attack (as in minus 6 or 8 to armor) when facing mythril plated dwarves. Its silly, the peasants with poor hand axes should have bad attack against anything, and dwarves with super awesome dwarven axes should be good against anything. The higher attack an axe has based on its regular stats will naturally make it better against armored enemies than a sword of equivalent quality (but not necessarily swords of better quality), while the swords higher attack speed and added defense skill will make it the more effective weapon to employ against poorly armored foes.

[k/t]

He would have if he could have found a way to make everything work better without it. AP is still in RR/RC 2.0, so I don't think he found such a way. With the source code in hand, who knows what might be accomplished. Time to throw a brick with a petition tied to it through CA's window?

[mastermindkar]

I'm all for encouraging CA to release their code for the greater good, but sadly I don't think they will.

I think the reason PB never got around to removing the AP was due to time and effort rather than accuracy. applying various stat adjustments for each weapon to properly reflect each weapons capabilities will be more complicated than just leaving the AP stat. However, it would ultimately be more accurate and effective than giving the same bonus to simple hand axes and two handed dwarven super cleavers.

[k/t]

He was planning to remove AP from certain small axes.

[mastermindkar]

Oh. Well that's an improvement too.

[Sohn des Khaine]

Today, you can buy a sword for 800 dollars and a pistol for 600. Which is the better weapon?

Depends on distance. At under 2m I prefer the sword

Crossbows should NOT have AP, and neither should javelins. Instead, they should have higher attack numbers. Bodkins shouldn't be AP either.

I'm on side with javelins (I think the reason they have AP is that they are considered "anti Elefant weapons" an for that they have to overcome the insane armour level of these units) but crosbows should have it.
The second council of the Lateran (1139) banned them in wars between Christians as an dishonourable weapon (this didn't stop anyone to use them anyway...)
Longbow/Bodkin: there's a lon-lasting flamewar if a longbow can penetrate plate mail or not. My personal Opinion is that it would be able to penetrate 15th century platemail if it hits at point blank, but fails to penetrate later armour...

To me, it is more realistic to apply such bonuses rather than to just assign the blanket AP stat, which has the unhappy effect of scaling the damage bonus based on the defender's armor, so that peasants with crappy iron hand axes somehow get the equivalent of +6 or +8 attack (as in minus 6 or 8 to armor) when facing mythril plated dwarves. Its silly, the peasants with poor hand axes should have bad attack against anything, and dwarves with super awesome dwarven axes should be good against anything. The higher attack an axe has based on its regular stats will naturally make it better against armored enemies than a sword of equivalent quality (but not necessarily swords of better quality), while the swords higher attack speed and added defense skill will make it the more effective weapon to employ against poorly armored foes.

+1

[muller227]

AP is a stat that has numerous work arounds, considering elephants for examples, you can drop AP and add Mount effect. Though I think this also applies to their melee weapon, which is a minus.

AP for one handed units should probably apply only to higher quality units. A dragonslayer should be massively more effective than a Eorlinga with a hatchet. RC actually does pretty good in this regard so I think attack it from a classification considering unit quality (in Hand to Hand) and a picture of the weapon in game. Throw in attack delay and endurance for good measure. Its hard work swinging and recovering a flooring mallet, let alone a big ass war axe.

[k/t]

There is nothing intrinsic to crossbow bolts that makes them more effective against armour than arrows. Crossbows shoot harder, which is represented by their attack number being higher.

My personal opinion is that while arrows sometimes penetrated armour, they usually didn't. Longbows aren't anything special, and composite bows are superior in every way except ease of manufacture and wet weather performance.

Javelins are extremely effective against elephants because they have the "thrown" attribute, which gives them a huge bonus. As long as you have Pelargir, you don't have to worry about Harad.